Meeting recording video link: https://vimeo.com/1154661551
Presentation slides: https://www.mass.gov/doc/massdot-meeting-presentation-cambridge-1626/download
Timestamps are noted for key points (e.g. new presentation slide, new public comment). Public commenter names have been abbreviated to initials as the exact spelling wasn’t always clear.
Joshua Bartus (project manager - MassDOT): Hello, my name is Josh Bartus. I’m the project manager for the proposed Reid Overpass Memorial Drive over Brookline Street project, which will be presented today. I work in the major projects section at the Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s Highway Division headquarters in Boston.
During this presentation, we’ll explain the purpose of this meeting, present the project alternatives, and open it up for questions and comments. Finally, we will explain how you can submit your comments and questions about the project after tonight.
Comments received within ten business days of the meeting will be included with the official meeting transcript. I would like to introduce our producers, Miranda Briseño and Roy Kirwa, who will go over the basics of how this live virtual public information meeting will be conducted.
00:00:48
Miranda Briseño (producer - MassDOT): Thanks, Josh. So, briefly, our Zoom meeting controls, like Josh mentioned, you’ll be able to ask a question and share your comments. You can do this with the Q&A function at the bottom of your Zoom screen. We’ll get to the verbal questions and comments at the end of the presentation. When that time comes, you can raise your hand, and you’ll be able to unmute yourself, but for now, you are automatically muted, and your camera is disabled.
If you’re unable to access the internet or have technical problems calling in to the meeting, you can use the phone number 1-646-558-8656 and use webinar ID 84838546130. You can change the view in the upper right-hand corner of your Zoom screen to update to your preference. And closed captions are being automatically generated by Zoom, so they may not always be entirely correct. If you have any technical problems, you can call the Zoom helpline at 1-888-799-9666.
00:01:57
Quick note on MassDOT’s public meeting notes and procedures: This meeting is being recorded; Massachusetts Department of Transportation may choose to retain and distribute this video, image, audio, and/or chat transcription; All parts of this meeting are considered public record; By continuing attendance at this virtual public meeting, you are consenting to participate in a recorded event; If you’re not comfortable being recorded, you can choose to keep your camera off and keep your microphone muted, or you can choose to excuse yourself from the meeting.
As I mentioned before, your microphone and your webcam are automatically disabled. We will open the meeting to questions and answers at the end of the presentation. All questions and comments are welcome and appreciated. However, we do request that you refrain from any disrespectful comments.
00:02:43
Lastly, a notice of MassDOT’s policy on diversity and civil rights: All MassDOT activities, including public meetings, are free of discrimination. MassDOT complies with all federal and state civil rights requirements regarding discrimination based on sex, race, color, ancestry, national origin including limited English proficiency, religion, creed, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or veteran status. We welcome the diversity from across our entire service area.
If you have any questions or concerns, please visit: https://www.mass.gov/nondiscrimination-in-transportation-program to reach the Office of Diversity and Civil Rights. Thank you so much for joining the meeting, and we appreciate your participation. I’ll hand it over to Nate.
00:03:27
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis (communications/public engagement consultant - WSP): Thank you very kindly, Miranda. Appreciate it. So, just a little bit about how all of you got here today.
This is how this public information meeting was advertised. So, there were several MassDOT email bursts over the course of the past week or so. So, please share your email address with us; that is an important way that we get in touch with you, not only now during the design process, but someday during construction. There were newsprint ads in the Cambridge Chronicle and in Spanish in El Mundo, and then on various news websites, including the Cambridge Day, Cambridge Tab, and again in El Mundo and El Planeta.
00:04:13
Now, this is where we dropped our fliers. If you take a look down at the bottom middle of the graphic, you can see that’s the location of the project. There’s a small image of an excavator in a blue circle. So, that is where the Reid Overpass itself is. And then these other 27 sites are where we had our flier drops and our two staff tables.
I won’t take up time by reading you through all of them, but the idea is to either have something that takes a broad cross-section of people going through it, such as the post office at Central Square, or something that gives us a cross-section into a particular population that has an interest in the project, such as the Cambridge Bicycle, where we had one of our two staff tables. Twenty-seven sites is a pretty decent number of locations. As you can see, we have very wide diversity in the key there. If there is a site or two that you desperately think we’ve missed, please feel free to share those with us during the Q&A portion. We do try to have a balance.
There are lots of other ways to get the information out, we don’t want the fliers that we dispense to be the litter in every storm drain in Cambridgeport. But again, if there’s one spot that you think has just been desperately overlooked, we’re happy to take that in the Q&A. Again, just a thank you to the City of Cambridge, who helped us out with the languages that we should use in this area. We appreciate them, and with that, I will give this back over to Josh.
00:05:58
Joshua Bartus: Thank you, Nate. Joining me tonight on the panel is Matt Jasmin from our MassDOT District 6 office, Miranda Briseño and Roy Kirwa are the producers for tonight’s meeting. The state’s consultant design team includes Tony Timperio, Karina Scheller, and Hutch Myers from Benesch Engineering, and Gary McNaughton and Erin Fredette from Bowman Consulting Group, and also Nate Cabral-Curtis from WSP. The purpose of holding — Next slide, please.
00:06:28
The purpose of holding meetings is to provide an assured method whereby the Commonwealth of Massachusetts can furnish to the public information concerning the state’s roadway construction projects, and to afford every interested resident of the area an opportunity to be heard on any proposed project.
At the same time, the meetings afford the Commonwealth an additional opportunity to receive information from local sources which would be of value to the state in making its final decisions on what design parameters should be advanced for development.
Here we’ve provided an agenda for tonight’s public meeting. We’ll provide a brief overview of the project area and history. We’ll discuss the purpose and need, review the existing conditions, and state the goals and objectives we look to accomplish.
Next, we will discuss some of the steps we’ve taken to narrow down and develop all our alternatives. And then we will explain each of the concepts that are moving forward.
Finally, we will discuss the next steps and how to contact the project team. And the meeting will conclude with a question and answer session. Next slide, please.
00:07:30
Shown here are the project limits. Memorial Drive carries traffic over the rotary, which provides key connections to Brookline Street to the north, the BU Bridge to the south, and also the on and off ramp connections to Memorial Drive. Notable features within the project area are the Reid Overpass Viaduct structure itself, the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge to the east, which is becoming part of this project, the east-west bike and pedestrian facilities via the Paul Dudley White Bike Path. There are also nearby institutional facilities in Boston University and MIT.
In the northwest quadrant we have the Morse School, in the northeast quadrant there’s an abutting commercial building. In the southwest quadrant is the MWRA facility, and some associated subsurface infrastructure, and in the southeast quadrant is Goose Park. As you can see, the project area is physically constrained by all of these existing features and facilities in each quadrant, requiring careful design to limit the impacts to the abutting features. Next slide, please.
Miranda Briseño: Josh, sorry to interrupt, can you speak up a little bit? We got some comments that you’re a bit hard to hear.
00:08:43
Joshua Bartus: Sure. The purpose of the Reid Overpass Project is to address the deteriorated viaduct structure and reconfigure the interchange to enhance safety and traffic operations. The project will consider two potential approaches.
Approach A is remove the bridge and reconfigure the interchange to accommodate four lanes of traffic at-grade. Or Approach B, replace the bridge while reconfiguring the interchange below to improve functionality and safety. The project is necessary to address the following key issues:
First, the aging and substandard infrastructure. The existing rotary and viaduct are deteriorated. It’s outdated and it’s geometrically inefficient. Removal or reconstruction is required to meet modern design standards and long-term transportation needs.
Second, the safety concerns. The current interchange presents safety concerns for all roadway users, underscoring the need for improved infrastructure to enhance pedestrian, cyclist, and motorist safety.
And lastly, the traffic congestion. Severe congestion during peak hours reduces mobility and efficiency for all users.
The goal of the project aims to create a safer, more efficient, and modernized transportation solution that meets both current and future mobility needs. Now, I’ll turn the presentation over to Tony Timperio to discuss a little further.
00:10:04
Anthony Timperio (PE, consultant - Benesch): Thank you, Josh. As Josh mentioned, our team began exploring whether it would be feasible to remove the existing viaduct and bring the travel lanes down to grade, reconfiguring to be fully at grade.
This initial analysis identified significant operational challenges and led to investigating options of replacing the bridge and reconfiguring the rotary beneath to a modernized and more efficient intersection. From there, we conducted a deeper review of the project goals and its objectives to ensure that any potential improvement, whether at-grade with the bridge removed or grade-separated with a new bridge, are thoroughly vetted and evaluated design solutions.
Key items we completed to date are outlined below.
We’ve met with the City of Cambridge and DCR for coordination meetings in November of 2025. We’ve completed a traffic count program that included pedestrian and bicycle counts. We have prepared Stage 1 of the Intersection Control Evaluation.
We’ve completed preliminary structure reports for both bridges, the Reid Overpass Viaduct and the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge. And we attended the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association Outreach/Charrette meeting back in October 2024. The ground survey and right-of-way survey are underway, and we have developed conceptual alternatives. Next slide.
00:11:28
The existing rotary was originally designed during a period of lower traffic volumes and fewer roadway design standards. Although pavement markings and bike lanes have been added over time, the overall geometry remains outdated and no longer reflects current best practices for safety, efficiency, or multi-modal access. Vehicles frequently conflict when entering and exiting the rotary, and the presence of a traffic signal near the BU Bridge is an uncommon feature for a rotary; it adds to congestion and driver confusion. Under heavy traffic conditions, the wide pavement area often encourages unsafe behaviors, such as cutting off other vehicles or using the shoulder as a travel lane.
00:12:18
Built in 1940, the Reid Overpass has needed several major repairs over the years, most recently in 2013 and 2020. Today, the bridge is in poor condition and continues to show signs of deterioration. A 2021 state inspection rated the bridge in “poor condition,” reflecting its ongoing deterioration. Due to this, the bridge is restricted to light vehicles with only an eight-ton weight limit. The vertical clearance below is 14 feet 5 inches, and it does not meet modern standards and can create challenges for larger vehicles. The bridge remains safe for passenger use, but is not suitable for heavy trucks or busses, which impacts traffic and access in the area.
00:13:03
Along with the Reid Overpass, we’re also planning to replace the Memorial Drive Bridge structure crossing the Grand Junction Railroad just east of the rotary. Regardless of whether we move forward with an at-grade design or a bridge replacement with intersection reconfiguration, all alternatives will include the replacement for the Railroad Bridge.
00:13:30
The Railroad Bridge was originally built in 1906. It’s a single-span structure measuring 40 to 43 feet. Over the years, it has undergone several repairs, most recently in 2017 when a shoring tower was added to provide extra beam support. A state inspection in August 2023 rated the bridge in “overall fair condition.” The bridge’s minimal vertical clearance is 16 feet 2 inches, measured from the top of the rail to the underside of the bridge.
As part of the Reid Overpass Alternatives Analysis, we’re evaluating options to raise and widen the Railroad Bridge, not only to meet modern clearance standards, but also to support the rotary reconfiguration.
00:14:13
The Alternative Development Process.
The team conducted a structured alternatives development process evaluating operational goals in the context of surrounding physical, cultural, and environmental conditions, balancing a range of competing interests to achieve an equitable and sustainable outcome.
This process included the collection of existing conditions data, preliminary traffic operations, and stakeholder input, including feedback from last year’s Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association meeting. The next steps will involve the more detailed evaluation and analysis phase.
This approach helps ensure that each concept aligns with the project goals and objectives. By using the structured process, the design team can determine what the interchange truly needs to be, balancing functionality, community values, and long-term viability.
00:15:13
The Structured Evaluation Framework aims to ensure that all proposed alternatives address project needs, community concerns, and long-term performance.
The Information Phase: This phase focused on defining the owners, users, and stakeholders, and understanding each’s expectations.
Owners are the agencies or groups financially responsible for funding the project. For this project, MassDOT, DCR, and Federal Highway Administration serve as project owners.
Users are those who actively use the project. This includes all transportation modes and traffic types, including public transit, as well as emergency responders, maintenance crews, local residents, and daily commuters. Other user groups directly affected include BU and MIT students and faculty, along with the Morse Elementary School community.
Stakeholders are those impacted in other ways financially, environmentally, or through changes to daily habits or recreation. This group includes local businesses, regulatory agencies, community organizations, and other interested entities.
00:16:26
Next: Defining the Project Vision.
The project vision is defined by identifying key constraints, necessities, and stakeholder desires. Constraints are non-negotiable requirements that cannot be violated without significant justification. These include meeting all environmental regulations and avoiding major impacts to parkland.
Necessities represent what stakeholders expect the project to achieve, so long as those goals stay within established constraints. Examples include improving bicycle and pedestrian facilities and enhancing overall safety and accessibility.
Desires reflect the wish list items; goals that should be pursued if cost and feasibility allow. One example is increasing the vertical clearance of the railroad bridge to 21 and a half feet.
00:17:23
Last year, the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association hosted a public meeting and meeting materials are available on the CNA website. MassDOT and our consultant team attended and participated in a detailed discussion about the project area. We gathered valuable feedback from residents and stakeholders on how the existing interchange functions today, the challenges people experience, and the improvements they’d like to see. What you see pictured here are just four of several comment boards where participants shared their input.
This input helped guide our approach, encouraging creative ideas and keeping the team focused on community priorities as we developed and evaluated design alternatives. While many thoughtful suggestions were received, there were some that extended beyond the project limits or fell outside of MassDOT’s jurisdiction.
00:18:17
Some of the concerns and challenges we heard:
Overall, the current setup simply isn’t working well or safely for anyone. People walking and biking don’t have enough space and they feel squeezed into the roadway. There isn’t proper separation between cars, bikes, and pedestrians, which increases conflict. The intersection is confusing, so everyone ends up making decisions at the last second. Drivers struggle in the rotary because of congestion and lane changing, making it harder to notice people outside their cars. And under the bridge, the poor lighting creates an uninviting, unsafe area that discourages access to the parkland.
00:18:58
As the overpass reaches the end of its useful life, we have a meaningful opportunity to reimagine this entire area, rather than just replace what’s there today. One of the strongest points of consensus is that safety must be improved for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. Creating dedicated, well-defined spaces for each travel mode will reduce conflicts and make movements more predictable.
Wider sidewalks and more robust bike accommodations will better support current usage and future growth. Upgraded lighting is essential to make the area more comfortable, welcoming, and safe, especially during evening hours. Simplifying crossings will help reduce confusion and create a more intuitive, accessible environment for all users. By reducing unnecessary pavement, we can restore meaningful open space and strengthen connections to the nearby parkland.
00:19:57
Some stakeholders are ready to envision a future without the overpass, seeing it as an opportunity to improve the area. Other stakeholders are more cautious. They point to ongoing congestion, cut-through traffic on residential streets, and safety concerns caused by driver frustration.
They also note that some improvements to neighborhood streets and separating regional from local traffic could help. Finally, some stakeholders fall in between, suggesting a smaller bridge is a compromise that balances safety, mobility, and community needs. Next slide, please. Thank you.
00:20:40
The goal is to reconfigure the rotary with several priorities in mind. First, to improve safety for everyone: drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. Second, to ensure the design aligns with community priorities, both as expressed during last year’s public meeting and through this ongoing public process. Third, to balance livability and mobility so the area works well for both travel and the surrounding community. Finally, we want to maintain a transparent public conversation about the alternatives, including the benefits and tradeoffs for each option.
00:21:19
After defining the project goals and gathering the input from the community, the next step was to ask, “What will get the job done?” The team conducted an open brainstorming session to explore every possible idea, ultimately generating more than 100, including those suggested by the public. These ideas covered a wide range of possibilities, such as alternative roundabout layouts, roadway and signal modifications, grade changes, traffic control improvements, and enhanced connections for people walking and biking. Creativity was strongly encouraged.
00:21:58
So, with over 100 ideas generated, the team conducted an initial screening to narrow the list and focus on the most promising alternatives. A set of general reasons for vetting was used to guide that process. Each idea was reviewed and either kept, that is, selected for further consideration, or rejected. Ideas that didn’t meet project requirements were automatically removed. This helped to reduce the list to a manageable number of alternatives for more detailed evaluation.
00:22:30
Screened Alternatives.
The screening of options led to several alternatives and addressed two primary design approaches that Josh mentioned at the onset: at-grade and grade-separated options.
At-grade alternatives:
- Alternative A1, a signalized intersection,
- Alternative A2, a multi-lane roundabout, and
- Alternative A3, a partial displaced left turn
Those are all at-grade alternatives.
Approach B, are grade-separated alternatives with a new bridge reconstructed.
- Alternative B1 is a grade-separated single-point intersection,
- Alternative B2 is a grade-separated multi-lane roundabout, and
- Alternative B3 is a grade-separated tight diamond intersection
00:23:24
The following two alternatives were eliminated early in the evaluation process due to critical design shortcomings, operational challenges, and significant geometric and multi-modal concerns.
00:23:41
The signalized intersection, a typical four-leg approach. This alternative was not carried forward due to significant critical limitations. This concept has limitations, such as cycling and pedestrian crossings that are very long, making travel inconvenient. Opportunities for greenspace are very limited, so the area doesn’t support the community’s vision for open and inviting spaces. Adding the Memorial Drive traffic overloads the intersection, resulting in unacceptable queues that often don’t clear during peak hours. Operations are poor and likely result in box blocking that we see today. The stop-and-go increases fuel consumption and emissions and may encourage off-peak speeding.
Overall, this approach doesn’t align with the community’s goals for multi-modal context-sensitive design, nor with the city’s vision for progressive infrastructure.
00:24:37
This alternative featured a two-lane modern roundabout with a four-leg configuration. However, several constraints were identified and limit the feasibility. Introducing Memorial Drive traffic volumes into a two-lane roundabout overwhelms operational capacity, combined with the two circulating lanes increases the number of potential vehicle conflicts. Larger vehicles such as school buses, delivery trucks, and emergency vehicles may experience difficulty navigating the tight approach from the BU Bridge as well as circulating within the circle.
The steep grade of Memorial Drive over the railroad introduces complications for grading of the circle, a bit more difficult to achieve, and impacts speed control and site distance. And the BU Bridge area exhibits a significant horizontal curvature, requiring careful attention to lane assignment and alignment, super elevation transitions, site distances, and to ensure compliance with design standards.
00:25:40
After careful evaluation of the previously noted screening criteria, as well as the public feedback received from the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association workshop, the following alternatives are planned to be moved forward and evaluated in greater detail:
- Alternative A3, the at-grade partial displaced left turn
- Alternative B1, the grade-separated single point intersection
- Alternative B2, the grade-separated multi-lane roundabout, and
- Alternative B3, the grade-separated tight diamond intersection
00:26:20 The PDLT, the partial displaced left turn, is an at-grade alternative and offers improved operations and accommodations for all travel modes. This is a new and innovative intersection design.
Some of the benefits this concept offers are:
- Improved traffic flow - left-turn vehicles are separated from the through traffic, reducing congestion and travel delays
- Enhanced safety - separating left turns from oncoming through traffic reduces conflicts, fewer conflict points lowers the risk of crashes
- Enhanced multi-modal access with dedicated bike lanes and improved walking paths
- Increased intersection capacity - more vehicles can pass through the intersection efficiently
- Signal timing and design improve safety and comfort for all pedestrians and cyclists
- Operational flexibility can be adapted to a range of traffic volumes, peak periods, and urban intersection configurations
- And a cost-effective solution - provides significant capacity and safety improvements without the need for a major bridge reconstruction.
This is innovative and progressive.
Some of the limitations:
- Right-of-way requirements: may require additional space for the displaced left turn lane, which can be challenging in the BU Boathouse and Railroad Bridge location
- It is unfamiliar: the intersection geometry may cause confusion to drivers initially
- The displaced left turns may increase pedestrian crossing distances, requiring careful signal phasing and design.
Karina will now explain how the intersection actually functions.
00:28:08
Karina Scheller (consultant - Benesch): Thanks, Tony. As Tony just shared, the PDLT, or partial displaced left turn at-grade, offers improved operations and accommodations for all travel modes by providing a more streamlined traffic flow compared to traditional left turn operations, making it particularly effective for high-volume intersections with heavy turning movements. I’m going to highlight the phasing approaches for this alternative to illustrate how the PDLT operations separate left-turn movements from through traffic, reduce signal cycle complexity, and improve intersection capacity while accommodating pedestrians and cyclists.
If you direct your attention to the bottom left corner on the screen, you’ll see the green arrows show movements with the right of way, or have the green light, red arrows or red lines show stopped movements through the phase, or they have the red light, yellow lines display yield movements, thick purple lines represent no pedestrian crossing, and thick green lines represent pedestrian right of way.
If you direct your attention to the upper left corner on the screen, for your reference, north is up for these images. You’re probably familiar with the project location, but for those of you who are not, if you look at the screen, you’ll see that the BU Bridge and Brookline Street run north-south and Memorial Drive runs east-west.
So if you draw your attention to the signalized intersections on the far left and far right of the main signalized intersection, you’ll see that the eastbound and westbound crossover movements on Memorial Drive have the right of way, as shown with the green arrow lines.
These are the movements traveling on Memorial Drive that may be coming from downtown Boston or Harvard Square, for your reference. These movements will then shift the left-turning vehicles into displaced lanes, and will come to a stop when they approach the main signalized intersection, where BU Bridge and Brookline Street meet Memorial Drive.
Simultaneously, if you focus your attention to the main signalized intersection, you’ll see northbound and southbound left turns on the BU Bridge and Brookline Street have the right of way, allowing these movements to clear without conflicting with Memorial Drive through traffic. Pedestrian crosswalks are stopped during this phase to avoid conflicts with the left-turn movements, as shown with the purple crosswalks.
00:30:31 (but didn’t show correct slide until 00:31:25)
For this next phase, if you draw your attention once again to the signalized intersections left and right of the main signalized intersection, you’ll see the crossover movements now have come to a stop, as shown with the red line. If you draw your attention to the main signalized intersection where the BU Bridge and Brookline Street meet Memorial Drive, the northbound and southbound left turns also come to a stop. The traffic traveling eastbound and westbound on Memorial Drive, again, think of coming from downtown Boston and Harvard Square, now have the right of way, as shown with the green arrows. At the main intersection, the eastbound and westbound left turns from the displaced lanes on Memorial Drive also have the right of way to turn left onto the BU Bridge or Brookline Street.
At the main signalized intersection, you will see the pedestrian movements are permitted in designated crosswalks, as shown with the green crosswalks.
00:31:35 (again, slight delay - correct slide appears at 00:31:44)
For this next phase, if you draw your attention once again to the signalized intersections left and right of the main signalized intersection, you’ll see that there’s still no change to the crossover movements. The traffic traveling on Memorial Drive, again, still have the right of way. The same traffic traveling on Memorial Drive has a right of way as it approaches the main signalized intersection where Memorial Drive meets the BU Bridge and Brookline Street to allow for the continuous flow. The eastbound and westbound left turns onto the BU Bridge or Brookline Street now stop, as shown in red.
Pedestrians are now permitted to cross the east and west approaches, as indicated by the green crosswalks, and the north-south vehicle movements at crosswalks at the main signalized intersections remain stopped, as shown in purple.
00:32:26
For this last phase, if you draw your attention, once again, to the signalized intersections left and right of the main signalized intersection, you’ll see that there is no change to the crossover movements. The traffic traveling east and westbound onto Memorial Drive that may be coming, again, think of Harvard Square in downtown Boston, now come to a stop when they approach the main signalized intersection where Memorial Drive meets the BU Bridge and Brookline Street, as shown in red. The north and south through movements traveling on the BU Bridge and Brookline Street now have the right of way, as shown in green. You’ll see the pedestrian crossing priority shifts to allow pedestrians to cross the north-south crossings, as shown with the green crosswalks.
With that, I’m going to pass it back to Tony, who will dive into the grade-separated screened alternatives.
00:33:19
Anthony Timperio: Thank you, Karina.
So, Alternative B1. In this concept, Memorial Drive remains elevated, passing over the intersection like it does today. The bridge structure is shown outlined in black. The overpass allows through traffic on Memorial Drive to flow freely, eliminating direct conflicts with the cross streets below. This design separates regional traffic from local circulation, improving operations and safety.
The bridge structure would be significantly reduced from what’s out there today, with just a single span with a length of approximately 150ft - meaning there are no intermediate piers located throughout the substructure of the bridge, as there are today. Beneath the overpass, the Brookline Street and BU Bridge approaches connect to a signalized intersection. This configuration consolidates all through and left turn movements to one simplified intersection, while allowing right turns to proceed via free-flow slip ramps.
Benefits include: Improved operations; Separation of Memorial Drive through traffic significantly reduces conflicts and congestion at the surface intersection; Provides dedicated bike lanes and continuous accessible sidewalks and crosswalks; Simplified intersection geometry, consolidating cross street movements into one signalized location reduces the number of potential vehicle conflict points; Efficient signal operation - a single left-turn phase and coordinated signal timing to improve intersection efficiency with minimized delay; And a compact bridge design - the shorter bridge length limits structural and visual impacts while maintaining continuity to the elevated section.
Limitations: Right of way impacts - Additional right of way acquisitions may be required to accommodate dual-lane off ramps off of Memorial Drive, particularly near the bridge abutments where space is limited. Construction complexity. Building a new bridge adjacent to an existing bridge structure introduces engineering and staging challenges during construction. Urban design and connectivity - The elevated structure and associated ramps create physical and visual barriers.
00:35:36
Multi-lane roundabout with a bridge.
Again, a grade-separated design where Memorial Drive remains elevated, allowing through traffic to flow freely above a two-lane modern roundabout below, separating regional and local traffic. The bridge would likely be a two-span bridge, with each span being about 120 linear feet, with a center pier within the roundabout circle. The at-grade roundabout connects Brookline Street and BU Bridge, with on and off-ramps providing access to Memorial Drive above.
Benefits include overall safety by separating the Memorial Drive through traffic from local traffic, with an uninterrupted flow on Memorial Drive, minimizing delays and improving travel time for both regional and local traffic. This alternative has reduced conflict points compared to traditional intersections, lower idling and emissions due to continuous operations, and potential for enhanced esthetics and landscape opportunities.
Critical limitations include: Complex bridge and ramp design increases construction costs and duration; Additional right of way may be required near the abutments and ramp tie-ins; Tight geometry of the double lane roundabout poses maneuverability challenges for larger vehicles; And pedestrian and bike connectivity requires careful design due to the elevated structure and the ramp spacing, as well as several crossings will likely include pedestrian crossing beacons.
00:37:11
Alternative B3, a grade-separated tight diamond intersection where Memorial Drive remains elevated, allowing through traffic to flow freely above a conventional diamond intersection with short ramps and two closely spaced intersections. The bridge would likely be a single-span bridge of about 120 linear feet.
Benefits include: traffic flow, improved familiar designs for drivers, dedicated multi-modal accommodation, and shorter overall bridge length.
Some limitations include: The close spacing of the two intersections could cause queuing issues; There are geometric constraints within the limited space, and closely spaced signals and ramps result in restricted sightlines and very tight turning radii, creating operational and geometric challenges; And community fit, this is more of a traditional signalized intersection, and it lacks progressive design.
00:38:16
So, where do we go from here? We’re continuing to collect ground survey and right-of-way survey data to support the next stage of plan development, as all these concepts prepared that you’ve seen thus far are just concepts developed with aerial photography. We’ll be advancing the alternative geometrics, as well as ground survey, as well as performing a high-level traffic analysis to help refine and compare the options.
Additionally, for the grade-separated options, we’ll be further reviewing the bridge concepts to evaluate their feasibility and how well they fit within the project area, within the actual ground survey. All these efforts will help guide us towards identifying a preferred alternative concept for public review and input.
Once agreed on, we’ll move into preliminary design then final design, and eventually into construction. With that, I’ll turn it back to Josh.
00:39:13
Joshua Bartus: Thank you, Tony, and thank you all. That’s the end of our main presentation, but I also wanted to go over how you can reach us. Please move the slide forward, thank you.
00:39:26
Here’s how to reach us. If you wish, you can submit a comment in writing to the chief engineer at 10 Park Plaza in Boston. Just make sure you reference “Major Projects” and that this project’s file number is on the screen: 611987. You can email your dedicated project— we’re going to have a dedicated project email for this project, which is: cambridgereidoverpass@dot.state.ma.us. Those emails, once that’s set up, will go to me and will go to our government affairs liaison, Dan Fielding, and it’ll go to Nate Cabral-Curtis, our public outreach consultant.
If you write to us, we will respond to you. A little later this month, we’ll be launching a project website that will host materials associated with the project and will allow folks to sign themselves up to receive our emails.
In the future, that will become a major channel to deliver construction period information, like what to expect in terms of the possible nighttime operations or traffic changes. So, please share your emails with us so we can let you know when that’s ready to go.
Any questions related to Memorial Drive outside of the project limits will still be collected and provided to DCR for their response.
I’ll now send it back to Miranda to go over a little bit of how the Q&A is going to be run.
00:40:46
Miranda Briseño: Thanks, Josh. Before I go, I think, Dan, if you wanted to…
Dan Fielding (government affairs liaison - MassDOT): Yep. Thanks, Miranda. Hi, everyone. My name is Dan Fielding with MassDOT Government Affairs. Before we open it up to the general Q&A, we just like to recognize your area electeds, if they’re in attendance, if they’d like to make any remarks. I do see Representative Mike Connolly, as well as Annie Mazzola from Senator Brownsberger’s office. If either you folks would like to comment, please raise your virtual hand.
Right. Can we unmute Mike Connolly, Miranda?
00:41:25
Mike Connolly (State Representative, 26th Middlesex District): Hey there. Can you hear me?
Dan Fielding: Yes, sir.
Representative Connolly: Well, thank you, Dan, and thank you to the project team. It’s State Representative Mike Connolly, I want to thank you for all your work on this project.
I was really pleased to organize a walk through of the area, with Senator DiDomenico and local Cambridgeport residents back in 2024, and was also grateful that you joined us at the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association later that year, as you mentioned. I also have been encouraging you to work very closely with DCR and the City of Cambridge, and I know you have been doing that, so that’s really important.
I want to recognize that DCR has implemented several upgrades in the area. And also, very recently, DCR has committed to expanding that narrow sidewalk from the Magazine Beach fitness area up to River Street, along Magazine Beach, and that will be a very welcome improvement.
And commenting on the presentation substantively, I really appreciate that you’ve clearly cast a very wide net in terms of gathering hundreds of suggestions and presenting various alternatives. For my part, I simply want us to arrive at the best design choice that will promote safety and enhance mobility for all users. I’m really interested to what my constituents and to what our advocates have to say later in this meeting.
And just a couple of specific considerations I want to raise, I really want to highlight the Cambridgeport neighborhood, the abutting neighborhood. The Cambridgeport neighborhood is considered an environmental justice community, according to census data. I often see the 47 bus sitting in traffic on Brookline Street trying to get through this intersection. Obviously, we want to promote bus use and so I think we have to think about the equity between Cambridgeport residents, on the one hand, the very densely populated residential neighborhood, and then if you think of the other side of the BU Bridge, you know, that’s a much more commercial urban area, where I think they could tolerate more traffic, if it comes to that.
Speaking of the BU Bridge, very quickly, I just want to say thank you to MassDOT for responding to our collective advocacy around putting flex posts on BU Bridge. I know that those recently went up. I want to encourage you to continue working with the BU Bridge Alliance, the Memorial Drive Alliance, and so many wonderful advocates that we have here. And finally, you know, the big consideration has to be safety. We know John Corcoran was tragically struck by an automobile just down the road from this location. One death on our roadways is one too many. So, I’m certainly looking for a design that will help reduce speeds.
And the final thing I’ll say for my part is I continue to push for automated traffic enforcement as another way to control speeds on Memorial Drive. So, I’ll leave it at that. You know, again, I’m very eager to hear people’s feedback. And I just appreciate how thorough you are in presenting so many different alternatives. So, thanks again.
Dan Fielding: Thank you, Representative. We appreciate it. Miranda, I don’t see any other electeds. If I missed anyone, I apologize. Please feel free to participate in the general Q&A. But with that, I will hand it back to you to start that, thank you.
00:45:23
Miranda Briseño: Great. Thanks, Dan. All right, so I’ll briefly go over the Zoom controls one more time. You can raise your hand. There should be an option that shows at the bottom of your screen to raise your hand. You can also use Alt+Y. If you’re dialing in, you can press star *9 to raise your hand. You can submit your questions via the chat box, as some of you have already been doing.
Please state your name before your question and try and limit your question or comment to one at a time. And we’re gonna likely try and keep you to two minutes. We’ve got 150 people in the meeting, so trying to make sure everyone has the opportunity to participate.
I’m just going to check the raised hands again to see if we’ve got any other electeds. Sorry if we missed anyone. So, we’ll start with some raised hands and then me and Roy, our other producer on this meeting, we’ll go back and forth between raised hands and the written questions.
So, we’ll go first to Dan Chaff. You should be able to speak now. You have two minutes.
00:46:41
Dan Fielding: Yes, very quickly. The PDLT design, you don’t have any bicycle lanes marked in there and I’m an avid bicyclist, and I always enjoy going through Fresh Pond from Charlestown, which is where I live, and I really would like to see some bicycle lanes in this design at least shown. Can you move that forward, please? Did you hear me?
Miranda Briseño: Yes, sorry, yeah.
Joshua Bartus: Yeah, I think he’s moving the slide back to the PDLT.
Anthony Timperio: It’s, yeah, it’s the first—
Miranda Briseño: This one?
Anthony Timperio: Keep going. It’s an earlier slide. There you go.
Dan Fielding: Oh, so that’s the— Okay. Because you didn’t have any of the other ones when we went through the lights. Okay, I missed that. It’s direct— So, we still don’t have anything on the BU Boathouse side, do we? Is that the blue line there? Shared use path, I guess?
Anthony Timperio: Yes, that’s a combination of bike and ped accommodation.
Dan Fielding: Okay, that’s one direction, that’s not dual direction on the river side? That would be ideal.
Anthony Timperio: And those are things we can certainly look into, absolutely.
Dan Fielding: Thank you, that’s it.
Miranda Briseño: Thank you. All right. Next, we’ve got NW. You should be able to unmute yourself.
00:48:30
WL: Yes. And, this is actually WL. I’m on my husband’s computer. I am looking at all these alternatives, and I’m quite— I’m speaking about pedestrian issues. There seem to be a number of essentially slip lanes with pedestrian crossings. So, if we’re looking at the slide we’re on right now. This— Right now, there are at least some of the intersections have a signal, which give pedestrians a safe crossing.
It looks like the alternatives, in general, have lots of unsignalized right-turn lanes. And, we know from experience that that is a risky situation for pedestrians, especially when there’s heavy traffic.
So, I appreciate the range of alternatives that you’re showing, but I think, in this location where there are pedestrians crossing the street all the time, setting up alternatives that have these unregulated slip lanes is a problem. So, I would ask you to look at all of the designs and consider how to make those pedestrian crossings safer.
For example, on the one we’re looking at now, there are 1, 2, 3, at least 4 locations with right turning traffic with unregulated crossings. Maybe one of the design team members could speak a little bit about how those options have been brought forward, and the kinds of things you could do to make them safer. Thank you.
Karina Scheller: I can start to address your question, WL. Thanks for bringing this question up. So, yes, as you can see, there are slip lanes. Typically those slip lanes are yield control for efficiency and simplicity. And so you are coming in at a slower speed and they should yield. They should be notified, though, if pedestrians are crossing and have the right of way. As far as signalizing these conflict points, that is something that we can look into if this design advances.
WL: So, I guess I would suggest that if there are going to be crossings where traffic essentially is just being asked to yield without actual stop control, then instead of having wide turning radius which allows vehicles to move quickly, that they need to be significantly tightened up. So, for example, the exit from Memorial Drive onto Brookline Street, that’s essentially a free right turn. And likewise, from Memorial Drive onto the BU Bridge. Anyway, there are— So, I’m nervous that simply putting yield signs is not adequate, particularly when there’s a lot of traffic.
Karina Scheller: Yes, okay. Noted. And a possibility could be providing a pedestrian beacon or something that will stop—
WL: When you say a beacon, you just mean a flashing light? You don’t actually mean a stop?
Karina Scheller: That would be correct. That would be different.
WL: Right. We’ve finally gotten some actual stoplights in this intersection, which makes it safer for pedestrians to cross. So, I think it’s not moving forward to remove those.
Karina Scheller: Yes, thank you for your concern. And we’ll continue this forward as a design team.
WL: Thank you.
Miranda Briseño: Thank you, WL. All right. We’ll do two more raised hands and then we’ll move to some written comments. NC, you should be able to unmute yourself.
00:52:42
NC: Hi. I just wanted to thank you very much for having this meeting and for engaging with the community and taking the input on some of the goals and the alternatives. So, I guess I am particularly interested in the single-point intersection for its potential to minimize the roadway footprint. I did want to ask - this is something that I have raised before with the design team - in the presentation, in discussing alternatives, several of the alternatives, a limitation, a concern was raised about the available right-of-way width impact to the structure of the bridge over the railroad, and concern about the available right of way and width of that bridge, and I do wonder why all of these alternatives continue to show a four-lane overpass when the traffic volumes that I have seen suggest that a two-lane overpass with a single lane in each direction would be adequate.
We have also had real-world demonstration that a two-lane overpass would be adequate for existing traffic during the implementation of the short-term safety improvements. About a year and a half ago, the westbound overpass was reduced to a single lane for several months, and the eastbound overpass was reduced to a single lane periodically for several days or a week or two at a time during that period, and traffic functioned perfectly adequately.
And it would have significant benefits in reducing the footprint of the viaduct, reducing the width of the bridge over the railroad. It would reduce the cost, and it would also have significant benefits in terms of making this section of Memorial Drive feel more like a parkway and less like a super highway running through our neighborhood. The nearest signalized intersections to the viaduct are several hundred feet away so merging and weaving would really not be a major problem. And I would ask why that hasn’t been considered, and if you would please consider that.
Gary McNaughton (PE, consultant - Bowman): Hey, NC, it’s Gary McNaughton. How are you? And we will, absolutely, we’ll be looking at that as this design advances. This is early and the conceptual designs have been developed.
We’re actually just getting brought in to develop a more detailed and sophisticated traffic model to look a little bit beyond just the intersection and to look into some of the more specific movements that would happen under the alternatives, because they do have the potential to change some of those patterns, and they’re fairly complex intersections to try to model. So, we’re working through that process, and part of that will be to consider what bridge do you need? And does it really need to be as wide as it is or can we effectively get it down to a single lane? And you may well be right.
NC: Great. Thank you.
Gary McNaughton: Thanks.
Miranda Briseño: Thank you. All right. And one more raised hand before we move to written Q&A. JW, you should be able to unmute yourself.
00:57:23
JW: Can you hear me?
Miranda Briseño: Yep.
JW: And if the background noise is disruptive, let me know, and I can step outside. First, I want to second what Mike Connolly said about the 47 bus. I take the 47 bus. When I do take the 47 bus, it is a cluster you-know-what. That rotary, it’s just— It takes forever to get through there.
I want to ask about the reduction some years ago of the number of travel lanes over the BU Bridge from four to three, I presume to accommodate a certain approach to separated bike lanes.
And I think, is it possible to revisit that while still accommodating some of the concerns of some people who are advocating for bike lanes? Is it even possible to contemplate having four travel lanes again over the BU Bridge? Wouldn’t that go a long way to relieve pressure in this intersection, in particular, the congestion, and for public transportation?
So, that’s really the main thing I want to raise. And I’d like to also add— And, by the way, you could put- pedestrians could just use one side of the BU Bridge. I’d be happy as a pedestrian, and I do cross that bridge, I’d be happy to use one side for pedestrians, and that might make it possible to still have some kind of bike lane, without having to eat up the travel lanes, which is a big part of the congestion problem, I think.
The other thing I want to say is anytime you have a so-called shared path or shared pedestrian and bicycle path, it’s a nightmare for pedestrians. There’s no such thing, really. There’s nowhere in Cambridge where, as a pedestrian, you can walk safely with bicyclists in a shared situation. They’re racing along. They don’t give a damn. One out of a million will warn you that they’re racing up behind you.
There’s no enforcement to speak of in the City of Cambridge anyway. I don’t see that changing anytime soon. So, I would like to urge you to bear this in mind when you examine these plans. The less shared paths we have, the more full separation and safety for pedestrians, specifically from bicyclists, the better. And I thank you for listening.
And by the way, I had a hard time following the presentation. I’m going to try to listen to it again when it’s posted. But I just wish you could speak with a little less of a robotic, jargony quality and talk like you’re talking to a high school class, because many of us aren’t familiar with all the terminology, we’re not trained traffic engineers. Just put it in simple, plain English as much as possible. Thank you.
Miranda Briseño: Thank you. Yep, this recording should be up a few days after this meeting, but I’ll let anyone else jump in with answers to your question.
Roy Kirwa (producer - MassDOT): All right. So, we’ll now—
Miranda Briseño: Roy, one second, I think, I don’t know if anyone is going to jump in from the project team to answer.
01:01:01
Gary McNaughton: Yeah, it’s a little bit— On the BU Bridge, and having worked on the project on the other end, on the contractor side, but that bridge got reconstructed back beginning in ‘08. And that was when it went from four lanes to three lanes. That was when the bicycle facilities were added. So, those sidewalks and things are integral parts of the bridge, they’re not easy to change, to try to take out a sidewalk and make that roadway area, the bridge in that area under the sidewalk may not even be designed to accommodate vehicle traffic on that area. So, that may not even be feasible, but when that was reconstructed back 15 or so years ago, that was when it was reduced from four lanes to three lanes.
Then, when the Comm Ave Bridge was redone, the slip lane that came from Comm Ave onto the BU Bridge was removed. WL talked earlier, I think she was involved with some of that planning process about making that a signalized movement to better protect the pedestrians and bicyclists crossing that area. And with that double right-turn lane, that required two lanes, which had previously been one lane, so that reconfigured those lanes a little bit more, and made it so that you only have a single lane coming across the bulk of the bridge from Cambridge, and only opening up to two lanes at the very end.
As we expand the modeling, we will be including that Comm Ave intersection and looking at, are there things that we can implement as part of this project? Reconstructing the BU Bridge to modify sidewalks may be beyond the scope, but we’ll certainly look and see if there are things we can do, and at the very least, understand how the two locations will interact and what we can do from a signal operations perspective to best manage that traffic.
Miranda Briseño: Thanks, Gary. I’m going to turn it over to Roy Kirwa, who’s going to read some of the written Q&A.
Roy Kirwa: Thank you, Miranda. So, our first question is from RM. “Will you please consider an Approach C? Having at-grade roadways and also a bike and pedestrian bridge over the intersection? Approach A, with only an at-grade intersection, will result in long signal wait times for pedestrians and cyclists, and would retain existing conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.”
Joshua Bartus: Yeah. Thanks. We got this question ahead of the meeting as well, talking about a raised bike ped bridge at a couple of different orientations. And I saw another question fly by as well so we can take care of that one, talking about a Hovenring-style raised bike/ped whole ring. So, right now, we’re a little more preliminary in our design phase, so we haven’t looked at that directly yet, but that’s something we can vet, at least, for feasibility, and then see where we go from there, if it can be progressed further. Obviously, it will be a little easier if the bridge isn’t going back, but that’s definitely something we can continue to look at.
01:04:28
Roy Kirwa: Thank you, Joshua. Our next question is from an anonymous attendee. “Will you coordinate with Boston about the timing of the traffic signals leading to the BU Bridge? Traffic flow at the rotary significantly worsened after the lanes on the bridge were reconfigured at Commonwealth Ave from two lanes straight and one right turn lane to one lane straight and two right turn lanes.”
Gary McNaughton: Yeah, I think I talked about that in my previous response that we will be looking at that intersection as part of the analysis. And certainly, I understand the history of those lane changes.
Roy Kirwa: Thank you, Gary.
01:05:14
Our next question is from an anonymous attendee. “Was a dedicated bridge for pedestrians over the intersection considered while an intersection remains below? This will be the safest approach for people and lessen wait times for congestion due to no pedestrian phase at lights.”
Joshua Bartus: Yep, I think that one’s covered by a previous response before Gary’s.
Roy Kirwa: Okay.
Joshua Bartus: It’s something we can continue to look at.
01:05:50
Roy Kirwa: We have a question from CH. “The grade option traffic traveling on West Memorial Drive will have oncoming traffic on their left, but also oncoming traffic on their right. Adding three traffic signals in a short distance is a non-starter in my opinion.”
Anthony Timperio: Obviously, we’ll look into that comment and make sure that there are no conflicts and queuing issues between the three intersections. We would not propose a concept that would not be feasible. So, as Gary mentioned, we’re going to start a higher-level traffic analysis phase of the project, and that will reveal itself, if there are any particular issues with those closely spaced intersections.
01:06:47
Roy Kirwa: Thank you, Anthony. Our next question is from an anonymous attendee. “Can you please explain how a crosswalk right of way can compete safely with the yield movement of a car turning right? Apparently there was a slide on it.”
Anthony Timperio: Yeah, I think this one was addressed by Karina earlier, when, I believe it was WL, raised the concern about the pedestrian crosswalks with the slip lanes.
01:07:32
Roy Kirwa: Okay. So, then we have a question from an anonymous attendee. They were wondering about the PDLT operation. “Why the slip lanes will have perpetual yield status, but pedestrians have long phases of stopped crosswalks?”
Karina Scheller: I believe, again, this is one that we kind of addressed with WL, something that we’ll look further into if the design advances.
01:08:05
Roy Kirwa: Thank you, Karina. And then we have a comment from J. They wanted to confirm if these plans are consistent with the reflection of DCR goals to make parkways less like highways.
Anthony Timperio: Well, we’ll certainly work with DCR as we progress the design and make sure that we’re in alignment with their ultimate goals of developing parkway-like features, and less like highways. So, that’s an ongoing process, coordinating with the multiple agencies, not only MassDOT, but obviously DCR and the City of Cambridge.
Roy Kirwa: Thank you, Anthony.
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis: I would just underscore, just in case anybody came in late, because it was an early slide, we have had coordination meetings with DCR… and Tony, feel free to virtually yank me by my necktie, but they certainly didn’t say that they hated anything that we’d come up with. But, we will continue to coordinate with them to make sure that we’re meeting their needs.
Roy Kirwa: Thank you, Nathaniel. Thank you, Anthony.
01:09:29
So, then, let’s see. We have a question from SB. “What’s the timeline for this project?”
Joshua Bartus: So, that one’s pretty fluid as it’s a very complicated project. There are a lot of things to look at.
We have a number of different alternatives that we’ve narrowed it down to, but even those, as we’ve discussed, we’re going to go into a much deeper analysis on. So, I can’t give you a “shovels in the ground” kind of answer, but, in terms of getting to 25% or even identifying a preferred alternative, we hope to do the analysis on these concepts we’ve talked about here and anything else we find out or been notified about, like the ped bridge ideas, those things, we can look at all of those and then we have to funnel them through ICE Phase 2. And work towards a 25% once we have an identified alternative.
I’d like to put some of that information, perhaps on that website we talked about, and maybe get some more feedback when we start feeling a way that we’re leaning, and get more community feedback. I would think that would be within this year, certainly.
And then we would want to get towards a 25% design, I would hope, also, in 2026. But, everything has a little bit of a standard deviation to it. But, we’ll definitely keep you updated on that when we start finding out more information as we progress in our design.
Roy Kirwa: Thank you, Joshua. I think this would be a good opportunity to maybe go back to some of the raised hands that we have.
Miranda Briseño: Great. Thanks, Roy, and thanks, everyone, for being so patient. I’ll go back to some raised hands. TJ, you should be able to unmute yourself.
01:11:20
TJ: Hello? Can you hear me?
Miranda Briseño: Yep. Go ahead.
TJ: Thank you. First, I want to support what JW said about the BU Bridge going from four lanes to three. It seemed, although that made traffic on the bridge easier, that caused even more congestion in the rotary. I’ve lived in East Cambridge for about 30 years, and I commuted through this intersection for 15 years prior to that.
One of the reasons why I moved into Cambridge was to get away from this intersection. And it seems that, also, Red Sox days make the rotary completely impassable. My concern is that Alternative B2, which includes a rotary, still does nothing for the fact that all traffic from all directions are trying to be the one car that can enter the BU Bridge at a time.
So, it becomes, again, looking like you’re pouring a gallon of water through a tiny funnel. And it just— I don’t see how anything gets better as long as there’s a rotary there.
And on B3 there are two traffic lights in close proximity to each other. And here in East Cambridge, in another of your intersections, we have a terrible problem where Land Boulevard and the Gilmore Bridge cross O’Brien Highway, Museum Way.
I have, many times, been the first car on Land Boulevard and sat through multiple light cycles not being able to get onto the Gilmore Bridge because the traffic on O’Brien Highway got into the intersection and couldn’t get back out the other side.
And in the chat, Cathie Zusy mentions “don’t block the box,” and that is a major concern up at that intersection. And it seems like two traffic lights that close together would cause the same problems here. So, as much as I know that I don’t necessarily understand everything going on in A3, it seems like that’s probably the more viable of the three options. I just wanted to get that out there, that it seems like you need to do something that makes the traffic on Memorial Drive eastbound and westbound, that wants to go over the BU Bridge— They can’t be fighting each other to get over the bridge the way they are today.
So, they need signalized lights so it can be controlled. As far as I see, A3 is the only one that does that. So, thank you for your time.
Miranda Briseño: Thank you so much for your comment.
01:14:15
All right. Our next raised hand, MR. You should be able to unmute yourself.
MR: Hello there. Yes, this is MR. I just want to quickly comment and echo the sentiments about slip lanes, especially around the relative safety of slip lanes with a large turning radius. I think they create a lot of conflict points. I live right by one up on Aberdeen Avenue here in Cambridge. And, because of that large turning radius, it creates a lot of head turning, and often it means that the driver is not looking out for a pedestrian or cyclist. So, I’m not very bullish on any design that includes that as a primary concern without creating a smaller turning radius.
And to that end, as other commenters have mentioned, a design that would include a pedestrian or bike overpass would go to great lengths to improve, I believe, throughput in the area as well.
And to that end, I just have one question, which is about congestion. I know Rep. Connolly mentioned also the 47 bus, and it was brought up here. To what end was there any consideration around creating dedicated travel lanes, for example, for buses? And/or when considering a viaduct design, any sort of future proofing if this were to become, for example, a rapid transit route in the future. I’m interested to hear if that’s a consideration and how that will potentially be folded in.
Just to the extent that the large lever that we have to pull, in terms of reducing congestion, is not actually just increasing the throughput of individual cars through an intersection, but to increase public transit availability.
Miranda Briseño: Okay, thank you. Can anyone from the project team speak to that?
Anthony Timperio: I’ll take that one. I guess, as with any proposed project that the DOT undertakes, obviously, there are benefits to improving public transit. So, these options do not necessarily advance public transit opportunities, but there are opportunities for us to coordinate with the MBTA to see what their future plans may be. And obviously, if there are any opportunities to enhance public transit facilities, we’d obviously include that in any options as we move forward.
But, that is a different agency that we will need to coordinate with, as with any public infrastructure project that is put forward. So, we are at the beginning stages of these concepts and outreach to not only the public stakeholders, but also the agencies that we need to coordinate with: DCR, MBTA, and the City of Cambridge. That input would be taken into consideration as we move forward, because this is a major reconfiguration. So, those would be worked into any future design.
Miranda Briseño: Thanks, Anthony. Thanks for your question, MR.
01:17:49
Next, we’ll go to CL. You should be able to unmute yourself.
CL: Hi, this is CL, I’m from the Charles River Conservancy. Thank you so much for having this meeting. I just wanted to reiterate, all the comments about slip lanes and pedestrian and bicycle safety, and working very closely with DCR to keep Mem Drive a parkway and make it feel like a place that people want to walk along, bike along, just chill out.
So, I would say, the number of lanes, it would be very interesting to see more investigation if we can reduce the number of lanes as a traffic calming measure, but also reducing impervious surfaces, as we know more roadway equates to more pollution that runs into the river. So, if we can also reduce pollution in the air as well, so I would love to see that modeling to come.
Also, a big question about the CSO outflow. The MWRA, and the City of Cambridge, and the City of Somerville are working on a control plan. May I just ask what might happen? And is it possible to use this project as an opportunity to address the CSO and easily eliminate it? Thank you.
Anthony Timperio: So, I’ll take this one. Yeah. Obviously, our intent is to try and limit the impervious areas and reduce the number of lanes. It’s a balancing act, as you may know. As we get further into the design with a particular preferred alternative, once that’s been vetted and approved and moved forward, our drainage analysis and environmental permitting, obviously, we’ll look into the CSO issue and see what may be feasible for incorporating into this project as it moves into final design.
Miranda Briseño: Thanks, Tony.
01:20:19
Right. Another raised hand, CC, you should be able to unmute yourself.
CC: Hey there. Thank you so much for hosting this. I have to be honest, I’m a bit flabbergasted by these designs. I think the primary thing that everybody knows about this intersection, this is a statewide pedestrian and bicycle crash cluster intersection. Everybody knows safety needs to be improved here. And it looks like we’re designing a highway interchange for 93 rather than a connector to a DCR parkland and a bridge in a very dense urban area where lots and lots of people are walking and biking. This is not a car area. This is an area where lots of people are moving around in the community and using active transportation to get around and do what they need to do.
So, I guess I wanted to ask a couple of questions. I’m really gratified that you met with the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association, but can you talk a little bit about the transportation equity engagement that you’ve done to really understand those needs? Have you met with groups like Livable Streets Alliance, Transit Matters to think about transit priority, Walk Massachusetts, Boston Cyclist Union, Charles River Conservancy, Cambridge Bike Safety? Have you met with groups like that to think about the detailed challenges that those types of users are facing? Like bus users, like JW mentioned, taking the 47 or the CT2 over the BU Bridge? They’re stuck in traffic.
If we’re not giving them bus priority or if we’re not making sure that those slip lanes are controlled, even at least as well as they are now with traffic signals, I think we’re just asking for disaster. There are whole sections in those slip lanes where you’re just putting a bike lane that’s painted and expecting cars to yield when they have a 100-foot on-ramp or off-ramp to a bridge. It’s just extremely unrealistic and very dangerous.
And I’m just really troubled to see stuff that we— We had a real-life experiment last year where one lane was closed on the Reid Overpass in each direction, as somebody had previously mentioned, and we even lost one full lane of Memorial Drive adjacent on both sides. And there were no backups on the Reid Overpass. So, why are we possibly designing for a four-lane overpass in any of these situations?
It just seems completely out of scope for what is currently the use case right now. And it’s only building for future demand. It’s going to work against all of our climate goals. I really think you need to go back to the drawing board on this. These are not really solid designs that advance pedestrian, cyclist, and multi-modal safety. I don’t understand how they possibly support transit priority or any of our state climate goals. And the design speeds are certainly going to be well above the 25 miles an hour that the DCR has agreed to switch Memorial Drive to, in recognition of it being a parkway.
So, I really think it’s time to go back to meet all these groups and then revisit all of these designs reflecting those serious concerns that are being raised. I think many people here feel this way. I hope that many people will be able to speak up.
Miranda Briseño: Josh or Tony, are either of you able to speak to…
Anthony Timperio: Thanks, CC, for your comments. Our intent is not to propose one particular alternative over another. This is the reason why we started this public outreach. We’re at our initial phases. We do want to solicit input from all groups. There have not been any specific individual advocacy group meetings that can be considered through the DOT. Primarily, our initial outreach was based with major stakeholders, such as the City of Cambridge and DCR. But your comments are duly noted.
Our intent is to try and incorporate multi-modal accommodation with any project that we pursue, and advance these designs, and particularly look at others, possibly if there is a better alternative out there. We’re not opposed to moving forward with it. But again, we’re at a concept level. Bike lanes and slip lanes, right turn lanes are details that would be advanced as we progress the design. So we want to hear from those groups and we want to hear, particularly, specific issues. A lot of your comments were generally broad-based. We’d like to get into the finer details and hopefully move forward into advancing various alternatives that appease those concerns.
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis: And, CC, just so you know, some of the groups that you mentioned, part of what we do in the run up to one of these things, and I’m not sure when you came in, sir, but there were five email bursts that went out. So, part of populating that email list is to go through and pull out the names and contact information, email addresses of the leadership in those known advocacy organizations. You heard from WL earlier, probably, she’s in that database. Those advocacy organizations are certainly not shy about turning up at these events and making their views known, for which we thank them. And I expect that they’ll certainly participate in these events. I know that we’ve— On other projects in the past, we’ve done individual things with them and may wind up doing so here.
But this was trying to set the level, as Tony says, and put a stake in the ground. But, there was no effort made, certainly, to hide this event from them. Rather, there was an effort made to get them down here. So, thank you.
CC: Oh, I’m so grateful for that. I don’t mean that you were hiding it from anyone. Not at all. I just mean it’s clear that that type of detailed engagement is missing from this to me. that, like, if somebody, for example, the point that WL raised— I just want to reiterate one more time that the idea that there’s something better now that will be less good in this design is unacceptable.
This is clearly going to increase vehicle speeds, and that’s not going to be safer for people walking and biking. So, we have to be doing at least as good as we’re doing now. But, I really think that, from what you said from the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association, you heard loud and clear, everybody says this is not a safe place. What we’re doing here is not advancing that or improving that.
And I think it is time to make sure that you set up those meetings proactively with all of those groups individually to make sure that you’re getting that type of detailed feedback. Asking us to come to these meetings and just giving general feedback is not going to get you what you need. Thank you so much for your time, though, and I appreciate all the work you’re doing.
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis: You’re very welcome, sir. Thank you.
01:27:38
Miranda Briseño: Thank you. All right, next raised hand is DH. Sorry if I butchered that.
DH: You’re good. Thank you. I am a Cambridgeport resident and a cycling commuter over the BU Bridge. First, I just wanted to note that Mem Drive is going to be reduced to one lane over from Harvard Square, not quite where we are, but I assume that will have an impact on the traffic volumes this will need to accommodate, so I hope that’s being taken into account in the trafic volumes. I also just want to really, strongly support the previous comments about the concerns about slip lanes.
The place where I’ve had the most close calls going over this bridge on a bicycle is coming from the Boston side back into Cambridge, and almost getting right-hooked by people making a right turn onto Mem Drive. With the intersection, as it currently exists, where that is signalized and where it is a much narrower turn, people make very aggressive movements there right now. And all of these designs seem like that’s going to make that much, much worse and scarier for me. So, I just want to raise that particular concern about this. Thank you.
Joshua Bartus: Thank you, DH. We’ll definitely keep that in mind as we progress.
01:29:10
Miranda Briseño: Thank you. All right. Our next raised hand is ZY. You should be able to unmute yourself.
ZY: Hi. My name is ZY. My partner and I both commuted through this rotary to get to or from work in the central square area and as staff at MIT. I strongly agree. The current rotary, at the very least, needs to be configured into a proper modern, or the term you seem to like, progressive roundabout. You just need to take a quick look at any Google Maps’ view of the rotary, and you can see where it starts circular and then literally goes pear-shaped. And as you noted, traffic signals and roundabouts don’t mix well.
I appreciate your focus on local residents as well as MIT students, faculty, and staff as stakeholders in the area, but there was a lot of focus on motor vehicle capacity, and not so much that a lot of those people that like to access the Paul Dudley White Path, both for leisure and as a commuting route, as well as Magazine Beach, and the Boston side of the river. None of the proposed overpass configurations seem to improve pedestrian access. One looked like it replaced a current two-stage crossing across three lanes with what looked like a four-stage crossing across five lanes.
So, I have three questions, which are:
- Why do the alternatives you’re advancing seem to be designed to induce higher motor vehicle capacity, sometimes at the cost of the pedestrian and micro-mobility experience, but you don’t seem to be advancing alternatives with a focus on inducing pedestrian and micro-mobility and public transit mode shift by addressing the current issues for those modes.
- Second, why is there such a commitment to adding more slip lanes and designs optimized for higher motor vehicle speeds? Particularly since there’s overwhelming data they seem contrary to Cambridge’s Vision Zero goals. And so, specifically, have you coordinated with the City of Cambridge about whether these designs are in line with their Vision Zero goals, especially so close to where that driver killed John Corcoran?
- Finally, if you’re moving forward with slip lanes for all the crossings without a red light to stop traffic for pedestrians in them, would you commit to making them raised crossings?
Karina Scheller: Thanks, ZY, for your question. I believe I just responded to one of those, but to address that, that is something that we can look into, again, when the design advances.
ZY: Sorry, which of those?
Karina Scheller: You asked about the raised crosswalks or yield signs? Did you ask about yield lanes that could be raised?
ZY: Yeah, but I was asking whether that’s something that you would commit to, but then I previously also asked the reason for not advancing designs that would induce pedestrian micro-mobility and transit mode shift by addressing the current issues for those modes and whether you’ve coordinated with the City of Cambridge about the design elements that seem contrary to the stated Vison Zero goals.
Karina Scheller: Do one of the other panelists have a response for this question?
Anthony Timperio: Certainly, I can jump in. The City of Cambridge, we’ve had initial meetings with them as the design progresses, ZY. And in particular, when we start vetting each of the options. We will run those concepts to a higher level with the City of Cambridge to incorporate their Vision Zero goals as best as possible.
As for your slip lane and ped control, again, as each design alternative advances, there’s various ways to accommodate prioritizing the ped crossing, whether it be, as you said, with a raised crossing, a possible pedestrian beacon, tightening up the curvature of the slip lanes, all those things will be considered as we advance the design to a higher level.
As I mentioned earlier in the presentation, these are concepts at this stage developed via aerial photography. We are expecting the actual ground survey to be forthcoming in the next few weeks, and we’ll start advancing the geometry and those particular items you mentioned to a higher level against the actual topography that’s out there and at the site.
ZY: And then in those phases, can we expect to see designs that are designed to induce pedestrian and micro-mobility and public transit mode shift? In addition to these designs that are specifically focused on inducing motor vehicle capacity?
Anthony Timperio: Of course. I mean, they’re not specifically trying to induce motor vehicle capacity. That’s one part of the picture. Pedestrian and bicycle accommodation is a major part of multi-modal accommodation, and as each option advances, those particular design details are to be advanced to a higher level.
ZY: I don’t know what was in the minds of the people who designed these, but you have in some, what appear to be paint-only bike lanes. As I said, you have some, currently, two-stage crossings being turned into even more stages with those floating little triangular pedestrian islands between the slip lanes and other lanes, all around designs that don’t seem suitable for a parkway. And for, as people have said, DCR’s goal, and as I mentioned, the City of Cambridge’s goals. So, that’s what I mean when I say it seems like this design is focused on inducing higher motor vehicle capacity but not inducing higher micro-mobility or public transit use. And I would really like to see what it could look like if we’re inducing that sort of mode shift, which will obviously also reduce the motor vehicle demand.
Anthony Timperio: Understood. Thank you.
ZY: Thank you.
01:36:26
Miranda Briseño: Thank you. We’ll do another raised hand. MR, you should be able to unmute yourself.
MR: Hi. My name is MR, and I’m sorry. I’m just honestly appalled with the design that has the displaced lefts. It is monstrous to look at. The slide even recognizes it’s confusing for drivers.
The pedestrian crossing distances are vastly increased. The bike lanes appear to be paint only. I can’t help but think that this design is going to get more people killed. The center of the intersection looks like it’s going to be a sea of asphalt, because presumably, you’re cutting down all the trees that are currently around the Reid Overpass to make that intersection. And the fact that it’s described as forward-looking on the slide is kind of insulting as well, because that’s not at all forward-looking.
The future is fewer cars. Are you not looking at the same future Cambridge is at reducing traffic volumes? I have to wonder what possessed anybody to think this was in any way an acceptable design? Like, did you consider that people on foot and on bikes are equal to people driving cars? Or did you think of anybody outside of a car as a second-class citizen?
And I think the design itself and the fact that an earlier panelist described bike lanes as a detail speaks to the fact that you’re considering any person outside of a car an afterthought. And that’s honestly unacceptable. I’m seconding CC on this; you need to go back to the drawing board. Like, why can’t you turn this into an actual modern, effectual, thoughtfully-designed roundabout that would address the future and DCR’s and Cambridge’s stated goals and Boston’s goals of reducing car demand to address congestion, and also inducing the mode shift, like getting more people out of their cars, like ZY just said. I just don’t think this design is a starter at all. Like, this is horrible. Thank you.
01:38:29
Miranda Briseño: Thanks for your comment. We’ll go to LA.
LA: Yes, good evening. As a member of Riverside, it seems as though everything stops at River Street, and nothing seems to be in tune with anything past that, because to travel that part of the day during a high peak is a real lockdown. And I don’t see any alleviation in any of the presentations that you made.
And I would like to know if you could forward it to me, what outreach have you done in Riverside? We’re a direct neighbor to Cambridgeport, and it’s a nice thing that you did all this time in Cambridgeport, but somebody who’s been active since 2021, I haven’t seen anything of your people or presentation, for that matter, answer anything that we have been strongly trying to get in depth with the DCR. And I’m certain I’m on record as being a person concerned how DCR and the City of Cambridge has tracked us down.
But, with these slip crosswalks, I mean, again…the time it takes for somebody to cross these lanes and maintain traffic at some type of flow— And excuse me, anybody who says that there’s never been backup on Memorial Drive that they don’t see, well, then they must have blinders on, with all due respect, because that stretch of pathway all the way from BU, clean up to BB&N, accessing to Fresh Pond and any conversation about reducing lanes.
We’ve already seen DCR present that they’ve got a monetary class lane from Harvard to BB&N, so the fire department can get through on Memorial Drive if there’s clogged traffic. Well, now he’s going to talk about the parking situation. But the realistic component of this is anybody making mention of getting rid of cars, one. Two, the elevation that the population in Cambridge is looking to increase and that nobody is going to be buying cars or, at least they’re not going to encourage them to buy cars, it is not realistic. Let’s be truthful. Let’s reach out to these neighborhoods that haven’t had a voice in this, because I’m one. What I’ve heard thus far, all I can say is get us involved.
And I do say— I understood everything you could say, but in a business that I left, anyone using an acronym and not presenting to the regular public what it is, is at fault. So, moving on, anybody using an acronym, make sure you stop and you depict to them exactly what the acronym represents, so the flow of knowledge becomes common and people don’t sit down looking at each other and say, what the heck is a SOC government? But, let’s do a better job in doing it right. Conceptually, it might be, but the realistic component of this, who we are, and we are all living in an urban environment, whether it’s this side of the river or the other; it’s all urban, and we need to do a better job.
And remember, when you talk about deterioration, the maintenance of anything is on the people who own that property. Deterioration can only occur if the owner allows and doesn’t maintain that property. So, when you made mention about the bridge, how bad it is, well, look at yourselves because taxpayers, I believe, supply the money to maintain, and I haven’t heard anything about that with anything new that you’re building. Because that’s the biggest erosion; the money is there, and nobody takes care of it. But people like us, we see it, make mention of it, and there is no response. So, please, you got my name. I live in Riverside. Reach out, let me know if you have hardship or you don’t know what I’m talking about. When I say that I know nothing about this, it’s interesting. But again, this neighborhood is not being represented by anybody, and it’s our job to make sure that you get out there. So, I can’t give you all an “A” on that.
But I look forward to, conceptually, you improving the method that you’re going. And don’t depend upon city council to talk to Riverside because we have to do our own representation. They know who we are and nobody’s doing it. Thank you.
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis: Yeah. LA, thank you for your comment, sir. As the gentleman who drove the fliers around and picked the locations, we specifically targeted Cambridge side and Riverside. So, we did continue on up into that area.
Having gone to high school in Cambridge, I am quite familiar with the area. We didn’t just rely on city outreach to help us. Since you came to this tonight, we will have an email address for you, so your email address will go into the database. I’ve been doing these projects now for 17 no 18 years now. You know, the bridge is from 1940. At some point, these things are like all of my favorite Brooks Brothers shirts. No matter how many times I take them to the dry cleaner and repair them, they do wear out. And just because that question has come up in the typed chat as well, there comes a point at which you cannot throw any more patches on.
So, I just want to note that, yes, every effort has been made to keep this thing going and save it. And as you’ve heard tonight, there’s a lot of tension, right? There are people who have deep concerns of how we’re getting out in the neighborhood.
There are people who said just what you said about, hey, you know, it may not be realistic that everybody’s going to ride a bicycle or a scooter. And then on the same side, you have people who are saying, hey, these intersections aren’t bicycle and scooter friendly enough. So, you can see this design team has got a lot of things to balance either way. But we have your information, and we hope you continue to come and make your voice heard. And rest assured that I did go into Riverside. I was there, personally. And I appreciate those comments, but Riverside was taken into account. Thank you.
Miranda Briseño: All right. We’ve got another raised hand. Joshua, do you want to go ahead and speak?
01:45:39
Joshua Bartus: I was just going to say, can we move it to the “How Can You Reach Us” slide for, potentially, the last couple of questions? We’ve been going on a little while here, and we have to respect everybody’s time of night. And we can continue to answer questions as we go forward as well. So, maybe take two more questions or something from folks. And then afterwards, if you didn’t get your question answered or if it remained in the chat and we didn’t get to it, if you don’t mind, please send it in In writing, we’re happy to answer it. And we’ll probably give you a more thoughtful answer as well, because we’ll have a little time to take a look at whatever you’re asking about. So, thank you. Maybe take two more?
Miranda Briseño: Sure. Yeah, we’ll do two more, and apologies to everyone who didn’t get the chance to ask their question. But, you can write it in the Q&A or we can follow up, like Josh said via email.
01:46:35
We’ll go to CS. Sorry, I don’t know how to say your last name.
CS: Hi, thank you for the presentation tonight. I just wanted to kind of set the stage, so a little while back, Cambridge asked the DCR to lower the design speed to 25mph. You know, this area is a high-density urban environment. People want to access Magazine Beach, they want to cross the river, and access the bike path. But to be totally honest, the designs don’t look or feel very safe to me. As previous people have mentioned, there’s lots of slip lanes. To be honest, if I had to cross this area, it looks like a lot of lanes to cross. There’s a lot of pavement. It doesn’t look very comfortable to cross outside of a car, so walking or biking.
It doesn’t really look like it does very much to improve bus service. So, we mentioned lots of delays on the bus. I don’t really see anything in here that would improve that, and…I think, overall, it seems to be built more like a highway interchange rather than a normal intersection in a street in the city. So, I don’t really have any questions. I just wanted to reiterate what a lot of other people said, I think the design doesn’t do enough to address the concerns of people walking and biking and taking transit. And it seems to really prioritize traffic flow, vehicle speeds, at the expense of access to the park and access to bike paths for people outside of cars. So, I appreciate the presentation. Thank you for all the work on this. I hope the next round of designs will address some of these concerns.
01:48:41
Miranda Briseño: Thanks, CS. MR, can you unmute yourself?
MR: Yes. That’s me. Can you hear me? Okay, yes, you got my name right. Thank you. Thank you for taking the time and for being here. I’ll try to keep it short. I know how much work goes into these proposals. I also hear you that these last three or four proposals are high detailed concept diagrams. I’m not going to denigrate them, and least of all you. I am a little scared of the proposals as a pedestrian, as a cyclist, I take transit, I also drive when I have to. I urge you to consider other alternatives to what is here.
As others have said, I urge you to consider alternatives that prioritize pedestrian safety, that pedestrian micro-mobility throughput, and allow for public transit shift. You know, Cambridge has spent a great deal of time and effort and blood improving pedestrian and micro-mobility safety and infrastructure. As a commuter on the Paul Dudley White Path, it’s very high-conflict. It’s five feet wide in sections. And I know a bunch of that is beyond the purview here, but having multi-minute waits trying to stay on Mem Drive to cross over where the bridge intersects is moving in the wrong direction. It feels like it’s moving in the wrong direction.
I think about Magazine Beach as a massively under-tapped civic asset, but it’s hard to get to, it’s forbidding and uncomfortable to get to on foot in many ways, today, and especially that last proposal you left on the screen for a while continues that. The Paul Dudley White Path similarly, it’s a massively under-tapped asset. It goes all the way out to West Cambridge and Watertown. You can get- a whole lot of people could access from this. But, continuing to not prioritize it would be a move in the wrong direction.
I feel these proposals leave it more or less in the corner. So, I hope you do consider other alternatives than these last four. I hope you might consider some of the aspects of the ones that were ruled out.
And finally, my question for you to have something to address quickly is, what is the expected design speed of this road? Others mentioned that Cambridge has requested to DCR to lower to 25, I know the flyover today is pretty speedy. Thank you.
Joshua Bartus: Yeah, I believe if that’s what they’ve worked out that’s what our goal is going to be. I know that’s more of a newer development, but, yeah, if they’re going to reduce it, then we’ll adhere to that.
MR: Thank you.
Miranda Briseño: Great, thank you, MR, and thank you for answering that, Josh. We’re going to cut off there. Apologies to everyone who’s waiting to ask a question. I know we had lots of folks in line. I will turn it over to Josh to close this out, but the email is on the screen for you to follow up with any questions or comments you have.
Joshus Bartus: Yep, just one last time. Please, please, please send in any comments you have. Even if you gave us your comment and you got an answer, feel free to send it in, and we’ll still answer it. That does help us remember all these things from the public meeting and everything, so we can bring it into our design going forward. So, with that, it is 8:22pm, I declare this hearing closed.